Kramer Law Office, Inc Scranton Road, Suite 160 San Diego, California Phone 855/

Transcription

1 Kramer Law Office, Inc Scranton Road, Suite 160 San Diego, California Phone 855/ Melody A. Kramer, Esq. VIA U.S. MAIL and Paul Zellerbach Riverside County District Attorney 3960 Orange Street Riverside, CA RE: People v. David Dortch, Case No. SWF Dear Mr. Zellerbach: Please be advised that I represent David Dortch and his family in the matter of rampant violation of their constitutional rights, including the unreasonable search and seizure that underlies the current prosecution against Mr. Dortch. This letter constitutes a formal request for you to exercise your discretion to dismiss the pending case against Mr. Dortch and, if you refuse to do so, to immediately take steps for turning the matter over to an impartial Special Prosecutor. Mr. Dortch and his family have been targeted by the Murrieta Police Department, with cooperation from other law enforcement agencies and the Riverside County District Attorney s office, for their political beliefs (or more accurately, a mistaken perception about their political beliefs). Law enforcement in Riverside County is already known for being excessive in enforcement activities bordering on paranoia, particularly in Murrieta and Temecula. In 2011, Murrieta was ranked the 7 th safest city of its size in the nation, yet it has acquired a tank. A tank! In neighboring Temecula, Daniel Snodgrass, an autistic high school student, was befriended by an undercover cop, badgered over and over again to acquire drugs until he finally acquired ½ of a joint, then was handcuffed in front of his school peers and hauled off to jail, interrogated without the benefit of legal counsel or even presence of his parents. Recently Riverside County lost a civil rights case filed by William Howard, an unarmed suspect who was shot in the face by a Riverside County

2 Page 2 of 6 Sheriff, resulting in a $7.8M judgment. The Dortch family is but one of the victims of this overreaching and excessive behavior. 12-year-old Zachary Dortch was caught engaged in some vandalism activity in early He is a child. He made a bad decision, not at all uncommon for 12-year-old boys. It needs to be dealt with, but this is not the same as an adult criminal. Even adults make bad decisions, as evidenced by your reported conduct of destroying campaign signs of your opponent in the recent District Attorney elections. As to Zach, Murrieta PD arrested him, then interrogated him until the early hours of the morning, without counsel or even his parents present. Unsurprisingly, he confessed. A court date was set about a month later. A couple of days prior to Zach s court hearing, Det. Brendan Carney of the Murrieta PD applied for a search warrant of the Dortch residence. He didn t need any more evidence for Zach s case; Zach had already confessed. But the Murrieta PD used this opportunity to get into the Dortch house. 12-year-old Zach, small for his age and never showing any propensity for violence or resisting authority in any manner, was pulled out of his own bed by multiple officers on a Saturday morning to be arrested for something for which he had already been arrested! This was intended to intimidate him, and it did. For 7 ½ hours, multiple officers took over the house, detained Mr. Dortch, his daughter and his daughter s boyfriend, none of whom had been accused of any crime. They conducted a search of two places in the Dortch house, one that could reasonably be considered to be within the scope of the warrant, and another that definitively was not - the master bedroom. In fact, they went there first. Anyone with any experience with 12 year old boys would know that the last place they would hide anything they didn t want others to see for any reason would be their parents bedroom. The substance forming the basis for the pending charges against Mr. Dortch were found in a small, locked box in the parents armoire. There was no drug manufacturing lab in the house as has been claimed. Zach s case was used as a PR stunt. Although the search of the Dortch home was conducted on a Saturday, Murrieta PD issued a press release that very day reporting the arrest and the Murrieta Patch republished the information, almost verbatim, the next day. No effort at any responsible journalism fact-checking was done. Furthermore, Murrieta PD made little effort to protect the privacy of the minor child who had been arrested, nor said a word about the constitutional presumption of innocence accorded to every suspect. The Dortch family were naturally upset about what had happened and claimed that their constitutional rights had been violated. They spoke out about it, as is their right under the First Amendment. Five weeks later, May 29, 2013, without benefit of counsel, they filed a complaint against those involved, including a complaint against you and your office. There has been hell to pay ever since.

3 Page 3 of 6 On June 12, 2013, Sgt. Markellus Reid of the Murrieta PD sent an to Murrieta city employees that read as follows: Subject: Safety Concern for City Personnel The following is applicable to all City of Murrieta Personnel: Dr. David Dortch is an Optometrist and owner of Spectrum Vision Center, located at Winchester Rd., Suite 127 in unincorporated Murrieta. His practice was previously in the City of Murrieta and he currently provides service to several city employees. A recent investigation involving his family has exposed several areas of concern, with the most severe being his Sovereign Citizen ideology. The Sovereign Citizen movement has increased nationally and their beliefs typically pose a safety concern for law enforcement and anyone representing government. This information is being disseminated for the safety of all city personnel who may be current or future clients, and to afford you the opportunity to make an informed decision when providing personal information, to include your place of employment. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at x6329. Markellus Reid, Sergeant Murrieta Police Department Neither Mr. Dortch nor his family are part of any Sovereign Citizen group, but that is the least of the problems here. This action by the Murrieta Police Department is in direct contravention of the Dortch family s constitutional rights and discloses that the actions against them are irreparably tainted, including the pending criminal prosecution. On November 1, 2013, Mr. Dortch was arrested by the Murrieta PD, without a warrant, outside of city limits (outside of their jurisdiction) and made a public spectacle of as he was booked, including a body cavity search being done in front of many people. The reference to Sovereign Citizen ideology was repeated during the booking process. Furthermore, a week later, the Murrieta PD issued a press release, falsely claiming that on April 20, 2013 they had found an active, illicit clandestine DMT (Dimethyltryptamine) laboratory which is not true. They also implied that the marijuana plants found at the residence were illegal, even though officers conducting the search had verified on the scene that they were legal in light of medical prescriptions for the same. They also claimed that Mr. Dortch was booked for Child Endangerment, even though all claims of child endangerment had already been resolved in April. The Dortch s daughter, then 17 years old, was not taken from the home because it was not deemed unsafe, and CPS subsequent investigation confirmed the same. This press release, again, was

4 Page 4 of 6 republished by the Murrieta Patch, with the Riverside County Sheriff s Office providing a photograph of Mr. Dortch. The reference to Sovereign Citizen was again repeated in comments on the Murrieta Patch to the story that repeated the allegations in the Murrieta PD press release, comments from an obvious law enforcement-related commenter going by the alias Justice for All. This commenter includes information that could only have come from police reports which are not publicly accessible. This commenter has made clear that they intend for the Dortch family to be pushed into bankruptcy and run out of town. Some of these outrageous statements, fueled and facilitated by Murrieta PD s conduct, include the following They [David Dortch and his wife Kim] have an extremely skewed vision of reality and are part of a faction of people who embrace the Sovereign Citizen ideology. I can t begin to explain how damaging and threatening this agenda can be to their children, not to mention their neighbors and our community... They should be criminally prosecuted to the highest extent of the law, then forced to move back to their hovel in Tennessee with good riddance. Nov. 10, 2013, 3:06am BTW, the Dortch s financial condition is relevant and germane to the argument of fitting parents. It demonstrates whether they will be able to provide for their family, or soon be out on the streets scavenging from dumpsters. Unfortunately, with the consideration of forthcoming legal bills and fines, I suspect they will be living in an Amana box and eating from Denny s bins in the very near future. Nov. 10, 2013, 8:49pm Although the Dortch family, representing themselves as best they could without benefit of counsel, eventually dismissed their civil case without prejudice, I have refiled it on their behalf. Although neither you nor your office are currently listed as defendants in this case, the challenge to the constitutional violations is still an active and open matter. Now, as to the pending criminal charges against Mr. Dortch, as of the latest court hearing, Deputy DA Paul Svitenko made a plea offer to Mr. Dortch. Per Mr. Dortch s counsel in that case, Mr. Levinsohn, Mr. Svitenko s offer was for misdemeanor possession of meth (a drug having no connection to this case at all), and a deferred entry judgment which would, apparently, place Mr. Dortch under the complete control and discretion of the County for 18 months. If that is indeed his offer, that would require Mr.

5 Page 5 of 6 Dortch to admit to factual findings under oath that he would know are untrue. Commit perjury, in other words. Obviously, he is not going to do that. Furthermore, it would place Mr. Dortch explicitly at the mercy of local law enforcement who could, at the drop of a hat, create a new accusation that would trigger entry of judgment against Mr. Dortch. I have explicitly asked Mr. Svitenko to confirm for me precisely what the pending plea offer is so there is no misunderstanding, but he has failed and refused to do so. More disturbingly, in responding to my letter and voic requests for this information, Mr. Svitenko was both vague about the offer contents, but adamant in throwing in his opinion that Mr. Dortch should dismiss the pending civil lawsuit, something he also told Mr. Levinsohn at the last court hearing. Here is what Mr. Svitenko told me (per the recorded voic ) -- I have proposed a misdemeanor resolution that I think will allow him to keep his license. I think its going to be an answer but he had to check it so we put it out one more time for him to check with the licensing board and so forth. But what I have is a misdemeanor proposal on the table. I don t pretend to know how you advise Mr. Dortch but in terms of, I think the civil suit with Murrieta and so forth I would say he should stop throwing good money after bad. Murrieta is a nice town. You know his kid did what he did, and so forth. I leave it up to you to advise him... He seems like a guy who s kind of got his stuff together in a lot of ways and may not want to keep on making trouble for himself... Although he invited me to call him back, my two efforts to do so have been met with unreturned voic messages. He mentioned nothing of a DEJ. The reference to may not want to keep on making trouble from himself was understood by me as a veiled threat that continuing to pursue the civil action (as he has an absolute legal right to do) would be creating trouble. Although the information I have received regarding the precise details of the pending plea offer are inconsistent between Mr. Dortch s criminal defense counsel and Mr. Svitenko, what is consistent is that his negotiations in the criminal case have at least twice been entwined with recommendations that Mr. Dortch dismiss the civil lawsuit. I shouldn t have to remind you that California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5-100, prohibits an attorney from threatening to present criminal, administrative, or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute. These charges against Mr. Dortch were filed while a civil lawsuit against you, your office, and various law enforcement agencies was pending. Now decisions on how and in what manner the criminal case proceeds are being hinged on a deputy DA who couples his discussions of resolution of the criminal case to dismissal of the renewed civil case.

6 Page 6 of 6 Your office cannot have any objectivity with respect to this matter and it is unethical for you or your office to proceed. Mr. Dortch cannot be placed in the position of being repeatedly advised by the District Attorney s office, who holds control over a criminal case (and is thereby threatening his liberty and professional license) to dismiss a civil lawsuit challenging violations of his constitutional rights. You have an opportunity, right here and right now, to stop making this matter worse by simply dismissing this ill-advised criminal case that was founded on an unreasonable search and seizure that was tied to a (mistaken) belief and targeting by the Murrieta PD about Mr. Dortch s political beliefs. If you do not dismiss the case, then you at least need to have an independent, special prosecutor appointed that has no connection to the pending civil lawsuit or Riverside County law enforcement agencies. I will look forward to your dismissal of the criminal case within the next seven (7) days. Sincerely, Melody A. Kramer